Re: [IPsec] My shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 10 June 2022 16:10 UTC

Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:09:21 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <25247.21726.403824.139055@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <95994354-7bf5-62ab-6c56-7de711e24491@nohats.ca>
References: <25247.21726.403824.139055@fireball.acr.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/of7lDtTI6WIq_dWfBm9Z7nIgj2c>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] My shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic
Precedence: list

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> but the RFC8223 is completely unrelated to the matter in hand:

> I assume it should be RFC8221 (i.e. replace the text in section 1 and
> the reference).

Yes, fixed.

> This document says it updates 7296, 8221, and 8247. I am not
> completely sure what it is supposed to update in RFC 7296? I can
> somewhat understand that it supposedly updates 8221 and 8247 as it
> changes the status of some cryptographic algorithms from MAY to
> DEPRECATED, but I do not think there is anything in RFC7296 that is
> really updated (not RFC8221, or 8247 do not update 7296).
>
> I.e., what changes do RFC 7296 implementations need to do based on
> this document (knowing that RFC7296 didn't specify the mandatory to
> implement algorithms in it)?
>
> Adding new status column to IANA is not updating the protocol.
>
> So I would remove the 7296 from the Updates list.

Agreed, done.

> In the section 1 there is text saying:
>
> 	IKEv1 has been moved to Historic status.
>
> I think it is supposed to say "This document moves IKEv1 to Historic
> status".

We used the text because RFCs do not make documents Historic, it is IESG
actions. See our whatsapp msg exchange.

> --
>
> What about other related RFCs, like RFC2407 The Internet IP Security
> Domain of Interpretation for ISAKMP, and RFC2408 Internet Security
> Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP)?
>
> Both of them are also obsoleted by the IKEv2, and are standard track
> documents. I think we should move all of them to HISTORIC, i.e. change
> section 3 to say "RFC 2407, RFC 2408, and RFC 2409 to Historic".

Yes. Done.

>
> I think the Normative and Informal References split is not correct.
>
> For example I do not think any of the RFC2407-2409, or RFC4306 are
> normative.
>
> I think the normative references section should just list RFC2119,
> RFC8174, RFC8221 (replace 8223 wih this), and RFC8247.
>
> The IKEv1, and IKEv2 releated RFCs are not needed to be normative
> references, as you do not need to read and understand to know they are
> deprecated :-)

Done :)

> I.e., move RFC2407, 2408, 2409, 4306, 6407, 7296, 8784 to informative
> references section. RFC7296 might also be in normative if it is kept
> in the updates list...

I removed 7296 from the updates: list.

All changes are in -06.

Paul

[IPsec] My shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-… Tero Kivinen
Re: [IPsec] My shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipse… Paul Wouters
Re: [IPsec] My shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipse… Tero Kivinen